180:. In the phase of the 1953 Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, the state government held that the brothers could keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants and the rest was declared 'surplus'. This was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any profession (Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)) and to equality before and equal protection of the law (Article 14). They also sought to have the Seventeenth Amendment – which had placed the Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule – declared
31:
246:
Constitution, we think that considerable judicial restraint is called for. We, therefore, declare that our decisions will not affect the validity of the constitution (Seventeenth
Amendment) Act, 1964, or other amendments made to the Constitution taking away or abridging the fundamental rights. We further declare that in future Parliament will have no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights.
264:
that the doctrine of prospective overruling in anyway does not supersede the already existing doctrine but simply tries to enrich the existing and rather complex practice with regard to the effects of new judicial decisions, by the adoption of an alternative discretionary device to be employed in appropriate cases. So, the basic characteristics of the above doctrine are the flexibility of content and fitfulness of occurrence.
1676:
1690:
205:
parliament and the inherent constituent power of parliament to amend the
Constitution. The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution.
299:
and thus, all the previous amendments which were held valid are now open to be reviewed. They can also be sustained on the ground that they do not affect the basic structure of the constitution or on the fact that they are reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights in public interest. Both the
272:
Parliament passed the 24th
Amendment in 1971 to abrogate the Supreme Court judgement. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and
240:
Taking cue from such formulation, Justice Subba Rao used this doctrine to preserve the constitutional validity of the
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, legality of which had been challenged. He drew protective cover offered by the doctrine over the impugned amendments while manifestly holding
263:
theory, where they said that courts declare law and a declaration being the law of the land takes effect from the date the law comes into force. They further said that it would be loathsome to change the above principle and supersede it by the doctrine of prospective overruling. It is submitted here
208:
Since according to
Article 13(2), the parliament could not make any law that abridges the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution, a constitutional amendment, also being an ordinary law within the meaning of Article 13, could not be in violation of the fundamental rights chapter
204:
The
Supreme Court, by thin majority of 6:5, held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Constitution. The majority did not believe there was any difference between ordinary legislative power of the
245:
What then is the effect of our conclusion on the instant case? Having regard to the history of the amendments, their impact on the social and economic affairs of our country and the chaotic situation that may be brought about by the sudden withdrawal at this stage of the amendments from the
290:
of the constitution. It also declared that in certain circumstances, the amendment of fundamental rights would affect the basic structure and therefore, would be void. Thus, one can see that this case is drawn on a larger canvas as compared to that of
230:"........ a court should recognize a duty to announce a new and better rule for future transactions whenever the court has reached the conviction that an old rule (as established by the precedents) is unsound even though feeling compelled by
110:
Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or taken away by the amending procedure in Art. 368 of the
Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution is 'law' within the meaning of Art. 13(2) and is therefore subject to Part III of the
209:
contained in the
Constitution of India. Therefore, all constitutional amendments thus far which were in contravention or which had made an exception to fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution were said to be void.
201:'s earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
217:
It was in this case that the then Chief
Justice Koka Subba Rao had first invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling. He had taken import from American law where jurists like George F. Canfield, Robert Hill Freeman,
334:
69:
1657:
189:
The issues involved were whether
Amendment is a "law" under the meaning of Article 13(3)( a), and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not.
273:
368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights.
1730:
259:
case dissented with the view of the invocation of the doctrine of prospective overruling. They seemed to rest their argument on the traditional
322:
278:
1735:
1083:
641:
540:
409:
1197:
1066:
1652:
999:
900:
382:
1159:
793:
512:
1319:
798:
353:
1314:
443:
304:
said was that the Parliament cannot amend so as to take away the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III, whereas in
226:
had considered this doctrine to be an effective judicial tool. In the words of Canfield, the said expression means:
1289:
788:
1740:
1372:
1167:
1149:
818:
1542:
1329:
803:
241:
that the impugned amendments abridged the scope of fundamental rights. Justifying his stand, he held that:
236:
to apply the old and condemned rule to the instant case and to transactions which had already taken place".
1597:
1582:
198:
153:
41:
30:
1701:
1294:
972:
783:
161:
135:
Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava and G.K Mitter (writing together); R.S. Bachawat; V. Ramaswami
1422:
768:
1577:
717:
634:
283:
223:
157:
479:
1392:
1051:
905:
890:
868:
612:
592:
545:
535:
260:
219:
374:
1377:
1299:
1137:
880:
875:
828:
753:
747:
587:
505:
405:
378:
1382:
1349:
848:
712:
707:
672:
366:
1631:
1604:
1592:
1572:
1506:
1501:
1484:
1464:
1459:
1439:
1304:
1284:
1279:
1182:
1142:
853:
778:
702:
687:
607:
89:
119:
K. Subba Rao (Chief Justice) with J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidiyalingam
1708:
1516:
1434:
1023:
989:
940:
925:
697:
602:
582:
572:
1724:
1562:
1521:
1407:
1387:
1359:
1309:
1274:
1248:
1243:
1236:
1187:
1127:
967:
957:
915:
838:
833:
763:
722:
646:
431:
367:
232:
177:
1694:
1444:
1412:
1367:
1105:
1100:
1071:
984:
962:
930:
863:
843:
737:
677:
667:
619:
577:
555:
498:
97:
85:
399:
1675:
1616:
1557:
1547:
1344:
1339:
1177:
1078:
994:
953:
920:
885:
808:
732:
682:
597:
182:
93:
1680:
1609:
1489:
1427:
1172:
1093:
1088:
1046:
1028:
1016:
977:
823:
813:
773:
758:
742:
692:
629:
624:
317:
172:
The family of Henry and William Golak Nath held over 500 acres of farmland in
1587:
1552:
1494:
1469:
1334:
1231:
1219:
1204:
1192:
1120:
1038:
1011:
895:
173:
454:
1636:
1621:
1324:
1209:
1006:
550:
308:, it was held that it cannot amend so as to affect the basic structure.
1526:
1474:
1454:
1402:
1214:
1132:
948:
910:
858:
369:
Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience
1626:
1479:
1224:
1115:
1110:
1056:
727:
100:, J.M. Shelat, Vishishtha Bhargava, G.K. Mitter, C.A. Vaidyialingam
1567:
1511:
1417:
1258:
1061:
560:
444:"Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process"
1449:
1397:
1253:
651:
567:
494:
521:
300:
cases, if seen closely, bear the same practical effects. What
484:
Frontline (vol. 29 - Issue 01 :: 14–27 January 2012)
255:
The judges who delivered the minority judgement in the
160:
could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the
490:
52:
I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs.
432:
Prospective Overrulingn - Author - M.V. Pratap Kumar
1645:
1535:
1358:
1267:
1158:
1037:
939:
660:
528:
276:In 1973, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of
131:
123:
115:
104:
81:
76:
65:
57:
47:
37:
23:
146:(1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the
373:. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp.
506:
335:Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 2 S.C.R 762
286:is not supreme, in that it cannot change the
8:
513:
499:
491:
29:
20:
1658:History of the American legal profession
346:
323:Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
279:Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
213:The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
404:. Abhinav Publications. p. 182.
7:
398:G. G. Mirchandani (1 January 1977).
156:case, in which the Court ruled that
72:; 1967 INSC 45 ; 1967 AIR 1643;
282:held that the Parliament under the
354:L. C. Golaknath V. State Of Punjab
14:
642:Restitution and unjust enrichment
1689:
1688:
1674:
453:. pp. 14–16. Archived from
16:1967 Supreme Court of India case
1653:History of the legal profession
1731:Indian constitutional case law
88:(Chief Justice), K.N Wanchoo,
1:
1736:Supreme Court of India cases
143:Golaknath v. State Of Punjab
24:Golaknath v. State of Punjab
401:Subverting the Constitution
1757:
1320:International legal theory
799:International slavery laws
794:International human rights
789:International criminal law
365:Austin, Granville (1999).
1668:
1373:Administration of justice
109:
28:
1150:Basic structure doctrine
1000:Natural and legal rights
881:Public international law
1330:Principle of typicality
804:International trade law
197:The judgement reversed
42:Supreme Court of India
1325:Principle of legality
1084:Delegated legislation
784:Intellectual property
451:Lok Sabha Secretariat
1543:Barristers' chambers
1485:Legal representation
1423:Justice of the peace
769:Financial regulation
481:Revisiting a verdict
295:. It also overruled
154:Indian Supreme Court
1578:Election commission
1290:Expressive function
819:Landlord–tenant law
718:Consumer protection
284:Indian Constitution
224:Benjamin N. Cardozo
1536:Legal institutions
1403:Lawsuit/Litigation
1393:Dispute resolution
1198:Catholic canon law
906:State of emergency
869:Will and testament
593:Law of obligations
546:Constitutional law
536:Administrative law
460:on 3 December 2013
220:John Henry Wigmore
1718:
1717:
1378:Constitutionalism
1300:Law and economics
1138:Act of parliament
876:Product liability
829:Legal archaeology
754:Environmental law
748:Entertainment law
588:International law
139:
138:
96:, R.S. Bachawat,
70:1967 2 S.C.R. 762
1748:
1741:1967 in case law
1693:
1692:
1691:
1679:
1678:
1502:Question of fact
1383:Criminal justice
713:Construction law
708:Conflict of laws
673:Agricultural law
515:
508:
501:
492:
485:
476:
470:
469:
467:
465:
459:
448:
440:
434:
429:
423:
422:
420:
418:
395:
389:
388:
372:
362:
356:
351:
77:Court membership
61:27 February 1967
33:
21:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1714:
1687:
1673:
1664:
1641:
1632:Political party
1605:Legal education
1593:Law enforcement
1573:Court of equity
1531:
1507:Question of law
1460:Practice of law
1440:Judicial review
1354:
1305:Legal formalism
1285:Comparative law
1280:Contract theory
1263:
1183:Legal pluralism
1154:
1143:Act of Congress
1067:Executive order
1033:
935:
854:Nationality law
779:Immigration law
703:Competition law
656:
524:
519:
489:
488:
478:V. Venkatesan,
477:
473:
463:
461:
457:
446:
442:
441:
437:
430:
426:
416:
414:
412:
397:
396:
392:
385:
364:
363:
359:
352:
348:
343:
331:
314:
288:basic structure
270:
253:
215:
195:
170:
127:M. Hidayatullah
90:M. Hidayatullah
17:
12:
11:
5:
1754:
1752:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1733:
1723:
1722:
1716:
1715:
1713:
1712:
1705:
1698:
1684:
1681:Law portal
1669:
1666:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1649:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1640:
1639:
1634:
1629:
1624:
1619:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1539:
1537:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1517:Trial advocacy
1514:
1509:
1504:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1477:
1472:
1467:
1457:
1452:
1447:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1425:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1364:
1362:
1356:
1355:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1246:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1185:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1164:
1162:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1086:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1054:
1049:
1047:Ballot measure
1043:
1041:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1024:Legal treatise
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1004:
1003:
1002:
992:
990:Letters patent
987:
982:
981:
980:
970:
965:
960:
951:
945:
943:
941:Sources of law
937:
936:
934:
933:
928:
926:Unenforced law
923:
918:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
878:
873:
872:
871:
866:
856:
851:
846:
841:
836:
831:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
745:
740:
735:
730:
725:
720:
715:
710:
705:
700:
698:Commercial law
695:
690:
685:
680:
675:
670:
664:
662:
658:
657:
655:
654:
649:
644:
639:
638:
637:
627:
622:
617:
616:
615:
610:
600:
595:
590:
585:
580:
575:
570:
565:
564:
563:
553:
548:
543:
538:
532:
530:
526:
525:
520:
518:
517:
510:
503:
495:
487:
486:
471:
435:
424:
410:
390:
383:
357:
345:
344:
342:
339:
338:
337:
330:
329:External links
327:
326:
325:
320:
313:
310:
269:
266:
252:
249:
248:
247:
238:
237:
214:
211:
194:
191:
169:
166:
149:Golaknath case
137:
136:
133:
129:
128:
125:
121:
120:
117:
113:
112:
107:
106:
102:
101:
83:
82:Judges sitting
79:
78:
74:
73:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1753:
1742:
1739:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1697:
1696:
1685:
1683:
1682:
1677:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1648:
1644:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1563:Civil society
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1540:
1538:
1534:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1522:Trier of fact
1520:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1408:Legal opinion
1406:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1388:Court-martial
1386:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1363:
1361:
1360:Jurisprudence
1357:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1249:Statutory law
1247:
1245:
1244:Socialist law
1242:
1238:
1237:Byzantine law
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:Religious law
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1161:
1160:Legal systems
1157:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:Statutory law
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
993:
991:
988:
986:
983:
979:
976:
975:
974:
971:
969:
966:
964:
961:
959:
958:Statutory law
955:
952:
950:
947:
946:
944:
942:
938:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
916:Transport law
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
870:
867:
865:
862:
861:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
842:
840:
837:
835:
834:Legal fiction
832:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
764:Financial law
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
749:
746:
744:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
724:
723:Corporate law
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
665:
663:
659:
653:
650:
648:
647:Statutory law
645:
643:
640:
636:
633:
632:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
614:
611:
609:
606:
605:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
579:
576:
574:
571:
569:
566:
562:
559:
558:
557:
554:
552:
549:
547:
544:
542:
539:
537:
534:
533:
531:
529:Core subjects
527:
523:
516:
511:
509:
504:
502:
497:
496:
493:
483:
482:
475:
472:
456:
452:
445:
439:
436:
433:
428:
425:
413:
411:9788170170570
407:
403:
402:
394:
391:
386:
380:
376:
371:
370:
361:
358:
355:
350:
347:
340:
336:
333:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
316:
315:
311:
309:
307:
303:
298:
294:
289:
285:
281:
280:
274:
267:
265:
262:
258:
251:Minority view
250:
244:
243:
242:
235:
234:
233:stare decisis
229:
228:
227:
225:
221:
212:
210:
206:
202:
200:
199:Supreme Court
192:
190:
187:
185:
184:
179:
175:
167:
165:
163:
159:
155:
152:, was a 1967
151:
150:
145:
144:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
111:Constitution.
108:
105:Case opinions
103:
99:
95:
92:, J.C. Shah,
91:
87:
84:
80:
75:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1707:
1700:
1686:
1672:
1445:Jurisdiction
1413:Legal remedy
1368:Adjudication
1268:Legal theory
1106:Ratification
1101:Promulgation
1072:Proclamation
1052:Codification
985:Human rights
973:Divine right
963:Constitution
931:Women in law
849:Military law
844:Marriage law
839:Maritime law
738:Election law
678:Aviation law
668:Abortion law
620:Property law
556:Criminal law
480:
474:
462:. Retrieved
455:the original
450:
438:
427:
415:. Retrieved
400:
393:
368:
360:
349:
306:Keshavananda
305:
301:
296:
292:
287:
277:
275:
271:
268:Significance
261:Blackstonian
256:
254:
239:
231:
216:
207:
203:
196:
188:
181:
171:
162:Constitution
148:
147:
142:
141:
140:
98:V. Ramaswami
86:K. Subba Rao
51:
18:
1617:Legislature
1548:Bureaucracy
1345:Rule of man
1340:Rule of law
1315:Libertarian
1178:Chinese law
1079:Legislation
1029:Regulations
1017:Law reports
995:Natural law
891:Reparations
886:Refugee law
809:Jurimetrics
750:(Media law)
688:Banking law
683:Amnesty law
661:Disciplines
598:Private law
384:019565610-5
183:ultra vires
124:Concurrence
116:Decision by
94:S. M. Sikri
1725:Categories
1610:Law school
1490:Prosecutor
1428:Magistrate
1215:Jewish law
1173:Common law
1094:Rulemaking
1089:Regulation
1039:Law making
978:Divine law
954:Legal code
901:Sports law
824:Law of war
774:Health law
759:Family law
743:Energy law
693:Bankruptcy
630:Punishment
625:Public law
464:1 December
417:7 December
318:Indian law
158:Parliament
1588:Judiciary
1583:Executive
1558:The bench
1495:Solicitor
1470:Barrister
1350:Sociology
1335:Pseudolaw
1275:Anarchist
1232:Roman law
1220:Parsi law
1205:Hindu law
1193:Canon law
1168:Civil law
1121:Concordat
1012:Precedent
921:Trust law
896:Space law
733:Drugs law
603:Procedure
541:Civil law
302:Golaknath
297:Golaknath
293:Golaknath
257:Golaknath
193:Judgement
174:Jalandhar
66:Citations
1695:Category
1637:Tribunal
1622:Military
1465:Attorney
1435:Judgment
1295:Feminist
1210:Jain law
1007:Case law
728:Cyberlaw
635:Corporal
613:Criminal
583:Evidence
573:Doctrine
551:Contract
312:See also
1709:Outline
1646:History
1553:The bar
1527:Verdict
1475:Counsel
1455:Justice
1310:History
1133:Statute
949:Charter
911:Tax law
859:Probate
132:Dissent
58:Decided
1627:Police
1598:Agency
1480:Lawyer
1225:Sharia
1116:Treaty
1111:Repeal
1057:Decree
968:Custom
864:Estate
814:Labour
578:Equity
408:
381:
377:–202.
178:Punjab
1702:Index
1568:Court
1512:Trial
1418:Judge
1259:Yassa
1062:Edict
608:Civil
561:Crime
458:(PDF)
447:(PDF)
341:Notes
168:Facts
38:Court
1450:Jury
1398:Fiqh
1254:Xeer
652:Tort
568:Deed
466:2013
419:2013
406:ISBN
379:ISBN
222:and
522:Law
375:196
1727::
956:/
449:.
186:.
176:,
164:.
514:e
507:t
500:v
468:.
421:.
387:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
